Arafat's guerrillas shot 7; world silent.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Ned

Master Zen, hopefully we are on the same side, left and right, in opposing dictatorships and in favor of liberation of oppressed peoples.

If that means we are to support the actions of the US "liberating" countries like what happened in Iraq? Hell no. There is nothing righeous of those kinds of actions and no one with a bit of common sense can consider that "liberation of oppressed peoples" with such dirty intentions behind it.

[Dinner]

Master Zen: Is liberating an oppressed people ever justified in your view?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Master Zen: Is liberating an oppressed people ever justified in your view?

If there is an honest and truthful intention to do so yes, if it is simply a propaganda cover-up for something else, of course not. Sadly, the Iraq war was a typical example of the latter.

[Ned]

Michael the Great, the left seems consistently opposed to the United States government opposing nationalization of US companies without compensation by radical elements in Latin America. The left seems to have some ideology that US companies "exploit" (as in "steal") both the resources and the labor of any country in which its invests. For this reason, the left almost advocates that US companies be nationalized, of course, without compensation because of this evil exploitation. So when United States government objects to this, it is of course wrong, because such nationalization itself was correct from the left's point-of-view, and America's intervention to protect its citizens property is nothing but naked "imperialism."

In a nutshell, though, US companies no more exploit the resources and labor of Latin American countries than they exploit resources and labor of America. If the principal the left advocates with respect to Latin American countries is valid, then US companies should be nationalized even in the United States, of course, without compensation. But this is not nothing less than extreme Marxism, is it not? This is Communism.

So admit it, Michael the Great, you are a communist.

[Arrian]

I was following you for a little while there, Ned, but then you jumped off a cliff.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Arrian: Just when you thought Ned was sane... unfortunetly he does that quite often (seems sane, then goes off the deep end ).

[Az]

Ned is trolling, and you're easy targets.

[Arrian]

Azazel,

He's actually a decent troll in that - like Imran says - he manages to occasionally make a serious, semi-sane post or two before cuttin' loose with the trollage.

-Arrian

[Az]

He's one of my favourites. He's a rather good guy , too. For a rightist, that is. .

[Ned]

Azazel, thanks.

Arian and Imarn, the argument "goes off the cliff," because I did not logically tie the premise to the final conclusion. The underlying link is that only communists advocate nationalization of compaines without compensation. I think this linking argument is valid, I respectfully submit, because communism is the only ideology of which I am aware that justifies and even advoctes nationalizations without compesantion. (Communists would even executed the greedy capitalist, pig-owners if they could get their hands on them.) I have seen no socialist that has ever advocated this, although I may be wrong.

The history of US "Imperialism" in Latin America is closely tied to the protection of US lives and property in the concerned states. The killing of any US citizen or the confiscation without compensation of a US citizen's property is an act of war. If any for a second doubt this, consider the act of piracy. Is piracy legitimate if conducted by a sovereign?

If you say yes, then I give you Jefferson's war against the Pasha of Tripoli.

[GePap]

Nationalism also would allow for nationalization without compensation. Why should the profits of the land (nation) go to a bunch of foreigners? And why should the nation pay these outsiders for their theft?

The history of US "Imperialism" in Latin America is closely tied to the protection of US lives and property in the concerned states.

Actually, it isn't. Part of the time, perhaps, not not the majority of it, by far. Ask Molly Bloom.

[Dinner]

Gepap: A great deal of the US involvement in Latin America for the first 30 years of the 20th century was directly to support US owned businesses who were underthreat from Latin governments and/or revolutionaries.

[Ned]

FYI, guys, my wife is from Brazil. When we first got married, she would makes statements like American companies are ruining Brazil. This, she said, is why they had so many protectionist barriers to keep US companies out of Brazil.

When I asked her to explain, she then told me that US companies were stealing Brazil's resources and a exploiting its people, etc., etc., etc.

Although my wfe was not a communist, she had only recently graduated from the University of Mineas Gerais. I suspect some of her friends were communists. I really do no know, as this is one of those topic we simply cannot talk about. You will know what I mean by this as soon as you get married.

Of course, what was really going on in Brazil was the protectionism of local business and the Brazilian "elite" by keeping foreign competiton out That the left supported protectionism as well is, to say the least, interesting, given that they are nominally for the people.

Well Brazil has its first leftist president. It will be interesting to see whether he opposes the Brazilian elite and opens Brazil to free trade and foreign investment, or continues to protect the elite and impererish the Brazilian people in the name of Marxism.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
Nationalism also would allow for nationalization without compensation. Why should the profits of the land (nation) go to a bunch of foreigners? And why should the nation pay these outsiders for their theft?

The history of US "Imperialism" in Latin America is closely tied to the protection of US lives and property in the concerned states.

Actually, it isn't. Part of the time, perhaps, not not the majority of it, by far. Ask Molly Bloom.

GePap the Pirate, or is it Communist!

[Ned]

GePap, as your professor of history, I want you to write a 1000 word essay on why Piracy is legitimate when conducted by a sovereign.